So how do we stop "socialism"?

[ck4829]

So I hear we shouldn't even talk about "socialism", we shouldn't call ourselves "socialist", etc.

But at the same time that won't stop the airwaves and the internet from being filled with "Democrats are socialist" from the other side. A lie repeated often enough becomes seen as the truth, right?

Look at the White House, look at Fox News, look at Breitbart, at InfoWars, etc. On and on.

We're going to be hit with the label of "socialism", of "socialist", every candidate will be labeled a "socialist", every policy Democrats put out there will be called "socialism"...

No matter how non-socialist, how un-socialist, or even how anti-socialist it is.

That's going to be a given.

Now going forward and the way I see it, there are several options we can all choose and participate in, and I think I've got it down to three general ones:

1. Say we're not socialist and let that be the end of it. Hope that us saying "we're not socialist" is enough to stand up to Republican-friendly media soundbites of "SOCIALIST!", of sensationalist conspiracy theories involving Je-globalists, of shadowy figures like Bill Ayers and George Soros that just screams movie deal, hope and pray that despite being washed in an ocean of propaganda that says Democrats are socialists that people will see through it, of hoping the quick "YOU ARE ALL GAY SOCIALIST COMMUNISTS" is not enough to sway voters and we can tell people to check our empirical data and mountains of evidence that proves we are not socialist. People will go for all the technical book data and facts, not the quick and LOUD soundbites, right? Sure.

2. Defang the label of "SOCIALISM". Take the air out of it. Don't let it become something that elicits a Pavlovian boo and hiss from people. Run socialists. Run as socialists. Have positions and call them socialist. AOC could very well be the future of the party. Accept it. Embrace it. "Socialism" doesn't have to mean bread lines or repression. This one is going to be very involved and very hard to do, if someone were to ruin it, it could cause ruin for the whole Democratic Party. But at the same time, a less demanding one here would be pointing at Republicans and talking about all the crazy things they've called "socialism" over the past couple years... like not wanting to get shot in school, saying black lives matter, getting vaccinated, tax cuts for the middle class, the metric system, having health insurance without the chance of getting hit with pre-existing conditions, etc., but it will end up legitimizing socialism or at least the idea of it.

3. No platform. The right wing is at war with the left, they see themselves in a culture war with us. It very well might be time to fight fire with fire. Don't let Republicans call Democrats "socialist". Destroy the propaganda. Destroy the sources of propaganda. Ban them, report then, and more. Call them "conspiracy theorists" and insane kooks, let it be known that's what they are. A lot of these "socialist" tropes do have roots in antisemitic and other forms of racist nonsense, let it be known, magnify it. Speak louder than them and over them. They say "Sociali--", you raise a finger, put it over their lips, and go "shhhh". Anything that can be done legally to get them to be quiet, go for it.

There could be other options and we could have a mixture of all three, but at the end of the day and going into 2020, we will see at least of a part of one these three in play in response to "socialism" from the GOP, but several questions remain, which one will help us win in 2020, and which one are we willing to use? And which one will we end up using?

[Squinch]

1. Every time republicans throw an insult at us, we tie ourselves in knots to deny it, or "defang" it.

This is semantics. The word turns off some potential voters so it does us no good to use it. Other than that, we should completely ignore this non-issue and pursue our policies without magnifying the republicans talking points.

Let them call our things whatever they want. We should call them "Democratic policies" or "the Democratic platform" or "here is what Democrats will pursue for you."

[ck4829]

7. I like it, it's ideal, but it assumes rationality and perfect knowledge though

Which in the 2016 election, we did not see.

It sounds like #1, #1 would be absolutely perfect in a world where people have all the knowledge at hand and will make the most rational and pragmatic choice when they go into the voting booth.

[Squinch]

10. It takes a very small amount of discipline and a lot more ability to dismiss the ridiculousness

of republicans than we tend to show. We give them too much credit all the time. And more often than not, we do the work of smearing Democrats for them.

You cannot convince me that republicans are more capable of rationality or discipline than we are. And yet they do this and we like to think we cannot.

Well, we can. One by one. Each of us refusing to take the bait, and reminding each other not to take the bait.

We have intra party differences. They matter. But right now, other things matter more. I think we all agree on that, but now we have to translate that to action.

[ck4829]

15. I hope you're right

[kennetha]

2. The problem is that some of our number

ARE self-professed socialists and want to drag the party in that very direction. I'm looking at you Bernie.

If we actually nominate a self-declared socialist as our candidate for the presidency, what do we do then?

[Squinch]

14. So we say, "Yes. Bernie does call himself that, but let's not let that take away from

the Democratic policies he supports that you want and need." Then we list 5 of them that are undeniably popular.

(See how that puts the Democratic party in the ascendant position, and not Bernie and his socialism? And it throws no one under the bus.)

And PS: he won't be the nominee.

[Autumn]

3. Tell people to quit cashing their SS checks, quit using highways and please don't use the

nasty socialist fire department if your house burns down. Don't call the police when you are in trouble. Don't use the post office, don't expect the military to protect you if the country is attacked. Don't go into a library where you can borrow books, movies and nasty stuff like that. Don't send your kids to public schools, stay the hell out of parks and whatever you do don't flush a toilet because you shouldn't be using a socialist thing like the sewer. DON"T USE MEDICARE, that's another popular socialist programs. Close down the Pentagon, it's too damn socialist. Leave all the snow right where it is. I could do on but I'm going out to breakfast.

I love socialism. It's what makes a society great

[CrossingTheRubicon]

6. None of these things are socialism.

False narrative.

[Autumn]

8. What ever. If it's brought to you and paid for with your tax dollars it's socialism.

Those things I listed are government-run, taxpayer funded Socialist programs and agencies.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

12. Not whatever. Repeating untruths doesn't make them any more true upon the re-telling.

Social programs, infrastructure spending, and public service agencies are not socialism.

Suggesting they are is an old right-wing talking point.

[Squinch]

16. Getting bogged in semantic purity does no one any good. The suggested argument is a good one.

[Autumn]

19. Nonsense. Talk about old right-wing talking points.

Socialism is the monster hiding under your bed. Democratic Socialism is a part of our system. Have a nice day.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

23. Democratic Socialism is NOT part of our system.

Only the radical right pushed this BS, until now.

Liberal social programs, schools, roads, police and fire are NOT socialism.

These are things supported by liberal Democrats and paid for with the wealth generated by a capitalist economy.

Enough with the gaslighting.

[pwb]

45. Yes Police, Fire , Schools. the military are all socialism.

Come on. do some research.

[EX500rider]

75. Maybe you should look up the defintion 1st...

so·cial·ism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[Squinch]

79. All this is exactly why we should ignore efforts to "educate the electorate" on the real meaning

of socialism and turn each question about it into a discussion of policies everyone wants.

[mitch96]

87. Agreed

When a Rt winger says socialism I say "oh you mean like giving unlimited medical care to a wounded soldier? That kind of socialism? They want to debate people sitting on a porch doing nothing and getting a SS check.. Don't fight his fight, have him/her fight your fight.
Like the talking heads do.. reframe the narrative to your advantage.. FAA? NTSB? I can't think of any more but you understand where I'm coming from..
m

[Squinch]

88. Exactly. "You republicans can call it whatever you want in your efforts to scare people, but we're

talking about programs everyone wants and needs, and republicans just don't fight for them. Ever."

[Autumn]

96. Sorry charlie, I'm going to embrace the term. If Republicans don't like it tough shit.

Those things are supported with tax dollars paid for by real people out of their own "wealth".

[CrossingTheRubicon]

97. The Republicans DO LIKE IT. They will be very grateful if you play their game.

Things that are paid for by taxes are not "socialism."

Perhaps a class in comparative ideologies?

[Autumn]

99. Perhaps a class in Who Gives a Fuck What Republicans Say and Think is

in order? Quite frankly if Republicans don't piss and moan about one thing they will piss and moan about another. I have shit ton of Don't Give a Fucks as to what they think and say.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

100. If you help Republicans by amplifying their message it hurts Democrats.

You should care.

[Autumn]

101. You may accept Republican framing all you want. I'll decide on my own what terms I use. nt

[CrossingTheRubicon]

102. You are using the same "framing" as the Republicans.

I, on the other hand, am resisting "their" framing and am asking you to do the same.

[Autumn]

105. Here's the difference, it's my framing, the way I want to frame it.

The OP wanted to know what to do with the term "socialism". I chose to embrace and defang the term. Let me tell you a secret, a lot of Republicans are reasonable intelligent people who don't give a shit about what we call ourselves, we just have a few differences between us, they are nothing like the idiot partisan Republicans you see on TV having the vapors over a silly term.

Don't worry I'm not going to twist your arm to make you use the term or wave my wand and turn you into one. But nobody, dead or alive, is going to tell me what terms I should or shouldn't use.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

107. You are playing into the Republican's hands by adopting the same "framing" as them. Not smart.

[TheRealNorth]

84. It depends how broadly or narrowly you define socialism

Considering how the GOP broadly uses the term, these definitely would be socialist programs.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

85. Since when do we Democrats buy into false right-wing narratives?

That's the point. Spreading dishonest right-wing talking points is dangerous and intellectually bankrupt.

Let's not help our enemies.

[TheRealNorth]

89. You seem to be the one buying into the narrative

When I have listened to some of the old recordings of FDR on Thom Hartmann, and FDR didn't run away from the red baiting - He reframed it. So if they want to call single-payer socialized medicine, it is perfectly fine to counter that with that Republicans are against Medicare.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

90. Not at all. I reject Republicans calling programs like Social Security "socialism."

FDR didn't call Social Security "socialism."

I also reject socialists calling programs like Social Security "socialism."

We are modern liberal Democrats from the party of FDR. We are not, and never have been, a socialist party.

[TheRealNorth]

94. You failed to answer the question

Try again

It's not about what is or isn't socialism. It's about owning the frame.

If you want to jump every time Faux News farts socialism, that's your own prerogative.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

95. What question?

I understand that "re-framing" socialism is the meme of the moment for both Republicans and Socialists.

Both, for their own ends, seem to want to "re-frame" social programs pioneered by liberal Democrats as "Socialism."

It's just not the truth. For Socialists to reinforce the false narratives of the far-right is bad for the liberal Democratic Party.

We have elections to win, and a country to restore.

[ck4829]

13. So #2

[ooky]

26. Fox News watchers have been brainwashed to think that those

programs and policies aren't socialism. That is how they separate those very popular policies (in the minds of their cult) from their boogeyman socialism attacks that claim we want to turn the U.S. into the communist USSR.

[Autumn]

29. Yes they have been brainwashed. Even certain dems like to demonize it.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America

[CrossingTheRubicon]

4. Democrats should strongly disassociate from socialism and embrace the liberal democratic values

that are at the core of our party philosophy.

Simple. That's what makes us Democrats.

[ck4829]

17. #1. Nothing wrong with it... We just need to prepare for the inundation.

[WeekiWater]

5. Socialism is not on the move.

There is nothing to be stopped.

Republicans will always call us socialists. A select few on the left will always want to incorporate into their being as a branding tool.

[ck4829]

21. It's not that it's on the move... It's that we're going to be swamped with the accusation by 2020

Regardless of the amount of "socialist" policies and candidates we have.

I'm reading in other threads that "socialism" is not a winning strategy and that it very well could mean we would lose in 2020, which would be a consequential election, it would validate Trump and the alt-right in their minds in every way.

Now I think that if running on it is a losing strategy then at the same time, being swamped by the accusation is also going to ensure defeat.

[WeekiWater]

24. "Now I think that if running on it"

No one is running on it outside of branding purposes. Bernie Sanders is a capitalist. AOC is a capitalist. They have branded themselves for election purposes only.

"It's that we're going to be swamped with the accusation by 2020"

We were swamped with the accusation in 2016. Is what it is.

I do think some running with some variation of a name containing "socialist" is a fools game. It gives the decades of right wing finger pointing merit when there is actually none to be had. There is no need for it but it is individual in nature. Somewhat ironic considering what socialism is.

[ooky]

9. 4. Pass our "socialist" bills in the House.

Such as the Social Security Expansion bill that has already been introduced. Where the hell does that bill stand?

How about a "repeal the tax scam and instead give the money to the working people who got nothing in the tax scam" bill?

How about a bill that prevents all people from having to go bankrupt to afford their medications?

Stuff people actually want, and they will have to vote for a Democratic Party trifecta in 2020 to get it. Change the narrative from "labels" to "actual things".

[Squinch]

11. And if we have to call them anything, call them "Democratic policies."

[ooky]

20. I would call them socialist bills, and at the same time take the opportunity

to educate how these very popular socialist policies are not the same as socialism as a form of government, in which the state owns all means of production and distribution, and how nobody in the Democratic Party is proposing that or has ever proposed that. Also to educate that we live in a mixed economy and have for as long as we have been a country, explain what that means, and that the Democratic Party wants the U.S to continue to be a mixed economy.

[ck4829]

22. A little bit of #1, a little bit of #2. Could work.

[ooky]

72. If we have real legislation to back it up,

maybe. We're obviously not going to stop the RW "socialism" propaganda machine with 1 and 2 just as strategies that stand alone or together, or even parts thereof.

The only real way to defeat bullshit is with substance.

[Squinch]

25. Why? Why get into it? Why not just sell the policies that we support and everyone wants?

My eyes glazed over just reading that. And I ALREADY know it.

Who cares what poli-sci category WE place it in? Nobody!

What is the benefit to us, other than feeling good about the fact that we know the difference and others don't?

We don't need to educate people on the various meanings of the word "socialist." We can't win on that because, no matter what we say, republicans will muddy that water. And it's immaterial anyway.

We need to educate them on what we DO, not what we would like them to call it.

It doesn't matter if they understand the semantics of socialism. It matters if they want what we are selling. And they all do. And all your suggestion does is water down the message that we are the ones who do what they all want.

[ooky]

31. I do understand where you are coming from.

I also think it doesn't make sense to call yourself a "democratic socialist" or any label in this political environment.

But in this case I'll disagree, because while I know that you already know it, there are a lot of very ignorant people in this country that don't know it and I think the better approach is to push back on it with the truth. That's why at the top of my suggestion is to get tangible proposals on the table to help push back on the empty labels being disingenuously used to win elections against us.

[Squinch]

33. But the truth is simply that the republicans are trying to scare them away from policies they

actually want by using the scary word, "socialism."

[ooky]

58. Of course.

Their whole strategy is scary words because if they just campaigned on their agenda nobody would vote for it. That's why I proposed getting our true agenda on the table as already passed House legislation as the most effective way to defeat the "socialism" scary word. It gives voters a choice between real agenda or a meaningless scary word.

[gratuitous]

18. Just because you're using the same words, it doesn't follow that you mean the same thing

When "socialism" comes out in a conversation in an attempt to end all further discussion, stop explaining or apologizing or dodging, and demand a definition: You brought it up, what do you mean by "socialism"? Don't settle for "everybody knows what socialism is" or "I don't have to explain myself to you," or "You're just trying to derail by brilliant argument." Get the terms defined and settled: Are public roads socialism? Public schools? Is the Health Department and its regulatory regime for restaurants socialism? Don't proceed until you get the terms defined to everyone's satisfaction.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

27. Socialism is very well defined in political science.

Socialism refers to government ownership (or other collective ownership) of the means of production and distribution and the elimination of private enterprise.

Generally including a "command economy" (aka central planning).

[ck4829]

34. You know that, I know that, problem is, not everyone is a political science major

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, talk radio, and more... it would be lovely, delightful, if someone was on one of these platforms and said "Socialism is (followed by any of the crazy definitions of socialism we've heard from the left or the right)" and someone else, freezes the transmission and says "Time out, the dictionary actually defines socialism as..." and then transmission resumes.

And there's another problem with this, and I honest to God hate to say it, especially as an academic, especially as someone with a degree bordering on a second, a member of the ASA, but it sounds wordy, it sounds technical, you know?

Put in other words:

We can say "Socialism is government ownership or collective ownership. Control of the means of production and distribution, and the elimination of private enterprise so nobody in the Democratic Party is actually socialist."

Most people are going to hear (And I am actually sighing when I type this out)... "Blah, blah, blah. Nerd talk. Blah, blah, blah."

But then at CPAC, what's socialism? "Socialism means no more hamburgers!!1! Aaahhh!11!ONE"

We've got to remember this. What's going to get support in the media and in the voting booth?

[CrossingTheRubicon]

36. Which is why when people who are presumably on "our side" echo the language of CPAC...

it is incumbent upon us to set them straight.

If I can't do that, my political science degree is wasted.

[gratuitous]

54. Yes, it is

But it's not so well-defined outside that specialized realm. It's important to nail down the meaning of words, particularly when the other person is using them incorrectly or as a catch-all to mean "stuff I don't like."

The same thing happens in discussions about religion (my field of study). "Everybody knows" what you mean when you talk about "God" or "Jesus" or "the Bible" until you actually start constructing arguments on what "everybody knows." I remember one discussion that ended abruptly when I pointed out to the other fellow that Jesus didn't have four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John following him around Galilee and Jersalem, writing down what he said and did.

[ck4829]

28. #2 and just a slight hint of #3 by not letting them define the term

Waste their time, exhaust them.

Racism, paranoia, fear of the 'other'... They're all cognitive shortcuts, but at the same time, doing it indefinitely, it drains mental resources. I think on an individual/bottom-up level, we can definitely get people tired of their positions by demanding they explain them and by exposing contradictions, errors, cognitive dissonance, etc.

Could be done.

[FBaggins]

30. The current majority strategy on DU appears to be #4

Pretend that the word means something else. Something nobody would oppose (like first responders and Social Security checks).

[ck4829]

41. Good or bad, I see that as #2 IMO

Call good things we all like "socialism", regardless of the truth

DUers are riding the wave of what's going on in America today, we can't blame them, everything and nothing is "socialist" at the same time according to media and politicians today.

Things that have nothing to do with the economy are being called "socialism". Not sure how David Hogg is a socialist for example, but that's apparently where we're at.

People say things, other people will react, it's our society.

It's happening whether we like it or not - Question is, which direction will it be steered in?

[Perrenial Voter]

32. We need a term for their agenda that conveys the loss

the would come from their privatisation and corporate welfare policies. They say we want to take their hamburgers, their trucks, their cows, their guns, their freedom...When they talk about socialism, we should say, they want to take away away public roads, public parks, police, fire departments, county hospitals, libraries, social security, medicare, etc. The difference is, we would be telling the unvarnished truth, because they do want to privatize all of these things. But they are good a framing this policies as a benefit for tax payers. When need a label that evokes the reality of these policies.

[JHB]

35. Republicans call everything they don't like "socialist"

How do we "stop 'socialism'"? By saying that out loud as often as possible.

Repeat it repeat it repeat it, so that whenever a Republican says "socialist" the phrase "they call everything that" is what pops into people's minds.

There's no need to go into contortions, just hit at their line of bullshit directly.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

38. It aids the right-wing when those on the left echo the same talking points.

Schools, roads, police and fire are not examples of socialism.

Nor is Social Security.

Liberal Democrats need to defend our values and resist the framing of false narratives that benefit Republicans.

[Awsi Dooger]

46. Tom Steyer -- or somebody -- needs a related commercial campaign

Hammer and mock that theme, that Republicans use socialism to describe anything they don't like. Show clips of various Republicans calling one thing after another socialism.

Do it well enough and the public will laugh at them along with us.

[lunatica]

37. What we need to do is constantly bring out the examples of our socialism

Let them use the word then go after them with all our socialist benefits

Do they or their parents get Social Security?

Did they get an education up to the 12th grade that the government paid for?

Do their parents get Medicare or Medicaid?

Do they know who pays for their streets, street signs, street lights, sidewalks, electrical infrastructure, water mains, drainage systems?

Do they’re know who pays their fire departments, police, Army, Navy, and Marines?

Do they know who pays for all the intelligence agencies that keep us safe?

Do they know who pays for the weapons, including nuclear ones that keep us a Superpower?

Do they know who pays for our wars and our police actions?

Why the hell should we keep pretending socialism isn’t the only answer to every one of those questions? Fuck them!

[CrossingTheRubicon]

39. None of these things are examples of socialism.

[lunatica]

42. They're all examples of socialism

They’re all paid with our taxes. We elect our representatives to allocate our tax dollars to pay for all this.

Well the 1% get their “fair” share first, which we pay for while we get a very small amount in “gratitude”.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

44. Paying for stuff with taxes isn't socialism. LOL.

Otherwise, every government in history would be socialist.

This kind of BS only aids the right-wing.

[lunatica]

48. You're entitled to your opinion.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

49. Not my "opinion" but the universal understanding of political scientists worldwide.

[lunatica]

50. Sure.

[EX500rider]

77. Definitions of words are not an opinion

so·cial·ism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[lunatica]

81. We The People

Does that ring any bells?

We elect people to represent us. The government is us.

[EX500rider]

108. Which has zero to do with who owns the means of production. nt

[pwb]

52. Political Science you say????????

You skip class a lot? You don't know what socialism is. http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_socialism

[CrossingTheRubicon]

57. No. I graduated with highest honors.

Did you read your link?

A source that is obviously biased to put the best possible face on socialism said:

Socialism generally refers to an economic system based on public ownership and operation of the means of production (capital goods, assets and production equipment) with ownership vested in either a public body or in the workers who operate the enterprise.

Pretty similar to the definition I gave above.

Socialism is about the ownership of the means of production and distribution by "the collective," which in all real-world cases is the state.

Thanks for proving my point.

[pwb]

59. That is not in my link.

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_socialism

[CrossingTheRubicon]

62. It is your link. I'd suggest reading more carefully.

[pwb]

64. Nice try.

I am looking for anybody on the post who agrees with you. 0

[CrossingTheRubicon]

65. Did you read your own link?

I'm prepared to accept an apology.

[pwb]

66. I am reading what everybody else is saying.

But you interrupt trying to convince me of your talking point.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

67. You posted a link. I quoted it back. You denied it was your link.

The truth is in black and white.

Did you read your own link?

It says:

Socialism generally refers to an economic system based on public ownership and operation of the means of production (capital goods, assets and production equipment) with ownership vested in either a public body or in the workers who operate the enterprise.

[pwb]

68. See ya.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

69. So, I shouldn't expect an apology?

Did you read your own link?

[Celerity]

71. your link has incorrect grammatical syntax, as it says 'what is 'A' socialism',

which is incorrect grammar. Also what the other poster said is on the same page as your link, right below.

Now, the link you posted goes directly to incorrect information.

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_socialism



This is totally incorrect, as what that describes is SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

Right below it

is



Which is the correct definition.

NO Democrat, not Sanders, AOC, Talib, Harris, Warren, etc., NONE advocates for the government taking over the means of production.

Also, NONE say they want to do away with capitalism, they simply want to (correctly IMHO) regulate it to a greater degree than it is now.

I have no idea why some choose to call themselves democratic socialists when they all are simply bog standard social democrats.

It is foolish to try to re-define a term whilst running for high office.

[GulfCoast66]

74. Look closer

We are not socialist and you have given no examples of socialism.

Words have fixed meanings. They can change with time but pretty much the entire world except republicans define socialism as the government control of the means of production.

Unless you believe in that, no matter what you call yourself, you are not really a socialist.

[AncientGeezer]

63. From your own link..Answers..is the accurate definition of Socialism...

" What is socialism?
Socialism generally refers to an economic system based on public ownership and operation of the means of production(capital goods, assets and production equipment) with ownership vested in either a public body or in the workers who operate the enterprise. There are several key variants of socialism ...."
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_socialism

[GulfCoast66]

73. Then we would be just as dishonest as republicans. Those things are not socialism.

Western Europe is the model many of use.

They uniformly are not socialist and do not call themselves such.

[TheBlackAdder]

40. Can't we just get rid of: Military, Farm Aid, Police, Airports, Highways, Sports Arenas, etc.?

[mercuryblues]

43. ok.

if they are against socialism then no more tax payer funded athletic scholarships.

Grants given to colleges for scientific studies? Well those colleges get to sell the new drug/cure to big pharma to the highest bidder. Or that new energy cell discovery to Exxon mobile for trillions. Or how about telling them to start driving around with hot tar in their trunk to fill in the potholes. Homeschooling their kids. Hell why bother educating those youngins, they could just pit an X where their name goes. When they get taken advantage of by a big company, no courts for them. Yeah, who needs socialism.

[struggle4progress]

47. Talk to people about it! The friggin socialists are trying to take away our childrens' right

to die of measles and other preventable diseases! And not only that: those same socialists are also trying to take away our childrens' right to be shot to death at music festivals or while huddled under the desks in their classrooms!

[ck4829]

51. Clearly a #2 strategy

Take the framing away from them.

[struggle4progress]

61. Laugh at them

[EX500rider]

80. Try a dictionary instead of "answers.com"

so·cial·ism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[lunatica]

83. Sealioning abounds in this thread.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

Sea-Lioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims. The term was coined in September 2014 by anti-GamerGate Internet users to mock perceived online discussion tactics employed by GamerGate supporters.

[TheRealNorth]

91. +1

I was thinking the same thing.

[lunatica]

93. The foot soldiers are obviously out in force

Michael Cohen evidently took a big bit out of Trump’s hide.

They’re all over DU now.

[AncientGeezer]

86. And our link says...

" What is socialism?
Socialism generally refers to an economic system based on public ownership and operation of the means of production(capital goods, assets and production equipment) with ownership vested in either a public body or in the workers who operate the enterprise. There are several key variants of socialism ...."
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_socialism

[cbdo2007]

55. We need to point out that they are doing all the same things...

Our entire country on both sides is all based around socialism. We need to point that out and make sure people understand that.

[beachbum bob]

56. the apt description for socialist programs should be wrapped in "freedom", "fairness" and such. Buzz

words like socialism kills off many supporters who otherwise support the programs and the outcomes.

[42bambi]

60. Replace the word socialist with realist, because we

are REALISTS! We do not live in a fake world. We are not fakes. We face the truth. We give facts. We believe in science. Etc.. Every time they label us, call them out as fakes.

[Lucid Dreamer]

70. This is a BIG problem:

This [pre] campaign has me swinging between 2 extremes:

A. Anybody can beat trump.
B. Nobody we have can beat trump.

ck4829> So how do we stop "socialism"?
ck4829> 1. Say we're not socialist and let that be the end of it.

Since my homebaked, naive analysis is favoring extreme B right now,
I'd say take ck's suggestion #1. and add something like
"Socialists BS and AOC are not our Party!"
"We are... [make our case here]."

JHB says> Republicans call everything they don't like "socialist"
So good. We have their playbook. Now run our plays away from their plan!

My suggestion is to:
1. REPUDIATE the avowal of "socialist" candidates and tell them to go start their own party.
2. Run with our best programs and people, but don't put easy handles on them for the Reps to grab onto.

This won't be easy, and frankly I'm pessimistic about the possibility of doing it in just 2 years.

[mopinko]

76. REBRAND THAT SHIT. americanism.

a uniquely american brand of socialism-
framed as investing in our most important resource- our people. early childhood education, the world's best k-12 education, a path to an affordable college degree, healthcare as an investment in human capital. and a robust democracy w a goal of 100% voter participation.

[Squinch]

78. By the way, all this would be helped immeasurably by the work of a good PR firm working on

Democratic branding and image.

[underpants]

82. Like the Fire and Police Departments? The military? The Green Bay Packers?

Make THEM provide an answer

[VOX]

92. Heavy on Option #2 with a dash of Option #3, and just a pinch of Option #1.

Republicans don’t advertise themselves as “fascists,” although they’ve clearly gone in that direction. Fascism is defined by Merriam-Webster thus: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Instead, they cloak fascism duplicitously as good old-fashioned American values. MAGA, and all that flag-hugging bullshit.

When the “socialism” gauntlet is thrown down, Democrats need to berate/deflect/educate simultaneously, and with conviction.

Example:
R: “You and your party are socialist!”
D: “Oh, please! Define socialism as you know it.”
R: “blah blah blah MAGA capitalism blah blah.”
D: “How dare you imply that I’m un-American, or that I’m advocating something that’s un-American. Our our country was designed to be of, by and for the people. Hard-working Americans working together, with and for each other. We’ve lost that special bond, which is terribly sad. But we can get it back if we work together.”

And so on. The major problem is the damnable RW media, drumming false crap into susceptible brains on a 24/7 basis. In promoting and protecting Trump and other miscreants, it shovels out generous amounts of fear and anger, fear and anger. This, in turn, generates an addiction, which has now created a cult, impervious to new and/or differing information.

And how does one break through that impervious ideological wall?

[ProfessorGAC]

98. Obama Had A Best Seller

He kept the $. They called him a socialist!
Socialists DON'T KEEP THE MONEY
They were wrong the, they're wrong now!
Why?
Because they obviously don't know what socialism means

[vlyons]

103. We need to clearly show and contrast democratic socialism to run-amuk capitalism

I explain it this way. Democratic socialism are those services paid with our taxes for national, state, and local parks, the interstate highway system, state highways, and county roads, your local public schools, community colleges, and state universities, the fire and police dept, state mental hospitals, etc, army, navy, and air force, FEMA, NASA, the CDC etc. Democratic socialism doesn't negate private enterprise.

Would you rather use the interstate highway system or pay for toll roads everywhere you go?
Would you rather call 911 for the Fire or Police Dept, or pay for your own?

Why does this even need explaining?

[roody]

104. Don't use the public library.

[Joe941]

106. Stop it?! We need to embrace it!

[David__77]

109. I'm ok with socialism as a concept and use of the term as an organizing tool.

If I understand it as a rejection of economic polarization and the progressive expansion of social rights (health care, employment, housing, education), then I’ll support socialism.

[backscatter712]

110. Do a Harvey Milk style "come out of the closet" campaign.

Hi, I'm backscatter712, and I'm a democratic socialist.